View Single Post
Old 02-16-2013, 09:32 AM   #34
Jake Raby
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:

1) why would an idling engine "fry" at 5 psi and 290df?
This engine, by design has the highest loads on the valve train at idle. Internally lubricated components that are only cooled and lubricated by the engine's oil need a constant flow of that oil to provide full film lubrication and to keep them at a sane temperature.

Low speeds have proven to kill these engines more than anything else in my research.

Quote:
2) Why would an idling engine have an oil temp in excess of 290df?
-Because the engine is most inefficient at idle speed
-Because the engine's coolant temps were 250F sustained (little volume of coolant circulation through the radiators at idle)
-Because this test was carried over over a week with the highest temperatures ever recorded at the test location, where temps were 100-108F for a solid week and the "low" temperatures at night stayed in the mid 80s.
-Because the engine ran night and day without being shut down at all.
-Because the oil was having to soak up so much heat from the severely "heat soaked" engine that never was given a chance to cool down

Quote:
I understand that 5psi and 290df is sub optimal, but these parameters theoretically provide better lubrication then the engine gets for the first 10 minutes of running after start up on a cold morning.
But not when sustained over 170+ hours. Cold start development was the absolute biggest concern that we had and the issue was never experienced. Not once, not ever and thats even when applying a test engine in Chicago over the winter where cold start temps well below zero are common. DLC utilization provides even more resistance to start up wear. The benefits of materials and tolerances applied don't stop there.

During development we used check valves, oil pressure senders in line, residual pressure valves and etc to ensure there were no issues. What we learned was the unique location where we pull oil from IS THE VERY FIRST part of the oil system to receive primary oil pressure. With multiple oil sending units we have proven time and time again that the IMS Solution plain bearing receives oil pressure before even the main bearings within the engine. That is why the adaptor that we have developed as part of the arrangement that provides JUST FILTERED oil to the IMS Solution is part of the patent for the entire device. We robbed oil from many other regions within the engine and we learned the pros and cons of each and trust me, there are HUGE trade offs if oil is robbed from certain regions. With those test we didn't see issues with the IMS Solution, we saw big issues with other aspects of the engine. I'll let others find out what those things are on their own, just like we did. Unfortunately it appears that customers are going to find those issues before anyone else~.

Quote:
Also, why would your bearing survive while the rest "fry"? I understand the crank is under a different load than the IMS, but the crank has more than triple the number of bearings to carry that load.
That engine didn't fail. We took it apart at least 5 times during the IMSS development and after the idle test we found that all the main bearings were showing wear through the dermis and epidermis layers of materials. The bearing clearances were opened by 15% due to wear from that test alone. The IMS Solution journal bearing saw a wear measurement after that test of less than 1/4 that amount. The difference was so small that it was only measurable in one part of the journal that was less than 1/6 the diameter of the journal. This test proved conclusively that even when subjected to the highest temperature, heaviest load and least amount of operation oil pressure that the IMS Solution bearing showed LESS wear than the main and rod bearings within the same engine, being subject to the same horrific operating conditions. Diamond Like Carbon (casidiam) processes proved to eliminate even that small amount of wear that ONLY existed when idling for over 100 hours sustained. For that study we even used filtered and non-filtered oil and a teardown before and after to illustrate the measurable differences.

Life for a journal bearing does not get any worse than low oil pressure (lack of hydrodynamic full film lubrication) heavy load (idle speed) that promotes oil shear and hot oil (lacking film strength) after so many hours of heat soaked operation.

Quote:
While I've never rebuilt a Pcar engine, I've rebuilt the engines of a few others, both air and water cooled. I've also spent a lot of time chasing cooling issues on air cooled engines.
I could tell from your questions that you lacked direct experience, and complete understanding of the M96 platform.

Quote:
My experience monitoring engine parameters tells me that its that there is more to this story. I don't see why an idling engine with the cooling system functioning properly would ever see oil temps of 290.
This proves more than you do not have interface with the M96. It is common for oil temps within the M96 engine to see normal operation at 230-250F in a bone stock engine, on the street.

Quote:
That's auto crossing on a hot day oil temp, not ticking over at 600 rpm oil temp...
No, autocrossing is drag racing through cones for a couple of minutes. Doing this with an M96 engine will generally lead to COOLER oil temps than we see on the street since the higher RPM promotes oil circulation, coolant system circulation and full film lubrication.

A car sitting idle in the middle of July in Georgia in a year when we have record high temps leads to high oil temps. We had to set up a water sprinkler on the radiators to circulate cold water on them just to keep the coolant temps at 250 without the engine failing. It ran night and day over and over again. I totally expected to come in one morning and find the car burned to the ground and thats why we parked it all by it's lonesome in the middle of a field next to the facility. The car used previously belonged to a 986forum.com member.

The bottom line is, I know this product. I invented it and I developed it to be the heart of the engines that assume my name when they leave my facility. I assume nothing and quantify everything, because one test is worth 1,000 opinions. These are the reasons that the IMS Solution has taken years to develop.

The funny thing is, generally people who have never touched these engines feel their way is the best. Thats why when attendees fill my classrooms for an M96 period of instruction, the very first thing I tell them is to forget EVERYTHING they know about any other engine. Until they do that all the prior experience is just a bad habit, that will inhibit their ability to become proficient with the understanding of the M96 platform.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist

Last edited by Jake Raby; 02-16-2013 at 09:48 AM.
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote